The damage done to children's lives when one of their parents is alienated by an interim sole custody order (by way of severely limited and/or frustrated "Contact")by the court and IVOs / Intervention Orders urged by the solicitors is incontrovertible. Given that IVOs and Intervention Orders are mostly fraudulent and or granted without their being risk of violence (a view confirmed by the legal fraternity) children need to be protected from the harm that false allegations cause.

The media mostly reflects the view promoted by the vested interests of the divorce and Family Court industry (est. BE$ up.a.) that Family Violence is mostly perpetrated by men against women. We ask that proper consideration is given to the majority research finding that women are equally if not more likely to initiate and perpetrate Family Violence against their spouse or partner, so that children are not unfairly denied their fathers.

This harm caused by denying children their fathers is demonstrated by the following:

"Protecting children from losing a parent after separation".

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all Gods Children.)

70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide

32 times more likely to run away

20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

14 times more likely to commit rape

9 times more likely to drop out of high school

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances

9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution

20 times more likely to end up in prison.

Please protect our children and their relationship with both their parents.The conflict that is created when one it pitted against the other in a fight for sole custody by the adversarial and mostly mutually exclusive court processes, thereby creating unnecessary conflict, which is then, incredably, used by Courts as justification to excluded one parent.

The solutions that best avoid this conflict is the protection of children's shared parenting rights from the outset of any litigation (and consequent abuse allegations that play such a big part in most FL litigation).

The simplest way to deliver this solution (and avoid conflict) is to facilitate the immediate recovery of 50/50 "Contact" (or less by agreement) when such contact has been unlawfully denied by one of the parents in the interim while the Court considers a parent's application to exclude the other parent. Custody decisions can then be made by the court after it has considered the circumstances in the context of reduced conflict and happier children. The argument that the risk of abuse of children by an accused parent justifies their removal (predominantly or completely) needs to be considered in context that the child previously had unfettered contact with both parents and the reality that for most biological parents would find it impossible to harm their children. Obviously in the unusual instance of one parent representing an imminent threat to their Child's safety, the interim exclusion of one parent could be ordered by a court - not by the parent that is trying to exclude the other from their child/ren.

Renée Zellweger as a social worker rescuing a child in the film Case 39. Photograph: c.Paramount/Everett / Rex Features

The hounding of social workers by the press for being "baby-snatchers" if they take children into care is a predictable story. But now such persecution has taken a new twist with online campaigns by families protesting about child protection intervention.

A proliferation of blogs and pages on social networking sites have sprung up. In one example, a Suffolk family claim they were forced to give up their child for adoption, with no evidence of abuse. They went to Spain before the birth of their second child, who is now in the care of Spanish foster carers acting on information from Suffolk social workers.

In some cases, the blogs make for uncomfortable reading. Social workers and managers are named and vilified, accusations are hurled at councils, and court injunctions banning the identification of the families and children are flouted.

According to Hilton Dawson, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, websites devoted to attacking social workers are a growing problem. "They illustrate the difficulties of the social workers who are damned when they do and damned when they don't," he says. "We get many complaints from people who feel very threatened by the publication of sometimes vitriolic criticism of them, and really very unpleasant personal abuse."

Managers are almost powerless to stop what Simon White, director of children's services in Suffolk, describes as "floods of information about the council that is completely false and misleading".

Some of the blogs are hosted in the US, where the constitution's first amendment, guaranteeing the right to free speech, makes them all but untouchable.

White's concerns about the content range from the impact on the targeted social workers and the reputation of the council to the effect the content of the sites may have on the cases and the families involved. "There's quite a lot of abusive and personal stuff aimed at named individuals," he says. "Some is clearly defamatory, and obviously we have duties to those staff. And when you get into the wilder edges of it, you are sometimes worried about their personal safety."

White also fears that an online campaign might be contagious. "If it started to become commonplace that whenever we did a pre-birth conference, families would consider leaving the country, it would force a change in practice," he says. "We'd have to be much less open with families."

One Suffolk employee who has been named on a blog says the experience is not just personally upsetting but has a knock-on effect on other cases. "Other families are aware of what's being said and they will bring it up, and that's difficult, especially when people may be making sensitive decisions," the employee says.

The problem of online hate campaigns is not limited to Suffolk. White knows of at least three other councils that have been similarly targeted, and a quick trawl of the internet reveals links to families around the country keen to tell their stories. Myths about social services – that they get financial rewards for every adopted child, or that they are involved in conspiracies to remove families' children – are perpetuated.

"The vast majority of what we do is actually allowing families to stay with their kids, even when we've got very serious concerns," White says. "There were 38 adoptions in Suffolk last year. Of children who entered the care system, 45% went back to their parents in the same period."

White does not think there is much that can be done about the way information spreads, but he would like action beyond the individual local authority when allegations about conspiracies or financial inducements are made. "The profession, or the government, needs to respond," he says. "They need to defend the arrangements and processes, and put right mistakes and misapprehensions."

The BASW works constantly to address the myths about social work, Dawson says. He has recently written to every local authority in the country offering to help them communicate to communities and the local media what social workers do.

At a time when councils are struggling to recruit social workers, another reminder of the pressures of the job is the last thing they need. "This work is immensely demanding, personally and professionally, and it's difficult to retain staff at the front end," the Suffolk employee says. "Staff are concerned that the same sort of thing could happen to them."

And now we hear our Family Court authorities claiming that fathers have been given false expectations that the can remain equally is the lives of their children when their wife repudiates their marriage and leaves.

This constantly repeated claim that the child's best interests are best served by creating torment and conflict by empowering a mother to exclude a father is contrary to what any normal person would think . It would be rejected without hesitation.

Wouldn't it improve matters if the fathers were forewarned? I'd say

Michael the same thing happened to me and I'm now banned from seeing my daughter at all.

If child contact was enforced from the outset, conflict would be avoided and the child's best interests would be protected. Children are happier and more successful when they have shared parenting. Its the solution that avoids the conflict, litigation, it reaps money for the industry and money for the mother.

The idea that a father might be a danger to their own child is as preposterous as assuming that a mother would be a danger to their child. Its an idea that is promoted with a mult million dollar PR campaign that targets men as perpetrators of violence against women - Family Violence:

This game all about extortion and kidnap - the 2nd oldest industry in the world. Parents will spend everything and more to maintain contact with their children. Its a gold mine.

Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey

National Post (Toronto, Ontario) - Saturday, 10th July 1999

By Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone

This article appeared in the National Post (Toronto, Ontario) on 10 July 1999.

This item may be cited as Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone, Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey, National Post (online edition), July 10, 1999.

OTTAWA - Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study that deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses.

Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.

When the original Alberta study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women.

The researchers, Leslie Kennedy and Donald Dutton, say they were primarily interested in male-to-female violence at the time.

In any case, the one-sided Kennedy-Dutton study was cited extensively in a 1990 House of Commons committee report The War Against Women, which ultimately led Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister, to call a two-year, $10-million national inquiry into violence against women. The inquiry's 460-page report made 494 recommendations aimed at changing attitudes in governments, police departments, courts, hospitals and churches. It also led to a torrent of lurid news features about battered women.

The current study, which will appear this week -- again, in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science -- says that while the need to stop violence against women is obvious, violence against men is being ignored.

"Our society seems to harbour an implicit acceptance of women's violence as relatively harmless," writes Marilyn Kwong, the Simon Fraser University researcher who led this study.

"Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women's violence . . . jeopardizes the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women."

The study shows roughly that 10.8% of men in the survey pushed, grabbed or threw objects at their spouses in the previous year, while 2.5% committed more severe acts, such as choking, kicking or using a weapon.

The violence is seldom one-sided. Of those surveyed, 52% of women and 62% of men reported that both partners were violent.

When questioned about who initiated the most severe conflicts, 67% of women believed they had started it; only 26% believed it was their male spouse.

Regardless of who started it, women appear to end up the losers in the struggle. A major U.S. study on the topic shows 3% of women suffer injuries in spousal violence, while only 0.4% of males were hurt badly enough to seek medical care.

Publication of the "other side" of the violence study provides a sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a particular agenda.

"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.

"As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true."

Even the federal government appears to turn a blind eye. In 1993, Statistics Canada began to keep track of assaults by men on women in its Violence Against Women survey. But it does not measure the female-to-male violence. "At the time, it was decided that since violence against women was more prevalent, we would only keep track of that," explains spokesperson Shelley Crego.

Ms.Crego said this decision was based on police reports, noting women complain more frequently of assault by men than vice versa.

In her article, Dr. Kwong implies this creates an incorrect picture. "It is important to keep in mind that, within the criminal justice system, any of the physical acts endorsed by these respondents would constitute assault," she writes.

Nor does it appear that violence is confined to married or common-law relationships.

In a separate study to be published this week, researchers from the University of Regina and Wilfrid Laurier University report that 39% of males surveyed said they suffered violence while on a date, compared with 26% of females.

"This sex difference has been found in other studies of physical and psychological dating violence," report researchers Donald Sharpe and Janelle Taylor.

Your hosts Reg and Sue Price would like to hear your news and views on the topics:

Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey

National Post (Toronto, Ontario) - Saturday, 10th July 1999

By Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone

This article appeared in the National Post (Toronto, Ontario) on 10 July 1999.

This item may be cited as Brad Evenson and Carol Milstone, Women emerge as aggressors in Alberta survey, National Post (online edition), July 10, 1999.

OTTAWA - Women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship, according to a new Canadian study that deals a blow to the image of the male as the traditional domestic aggressor.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the study, however, is the source of the data -- a 1987 survey of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses.

Although the original researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now.

When the original Alberta study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, it was taken up by feminist groups as evidence of the epidemic of violence against women.

The researchers, Leslie Kennedy and Donald Dutton, say they were primarily interested in male-to-female violence at the time.

In any case, the one-sided Kennedy-Dutton study was cited extensively in a 1990 House of Commons committee report The War Against Women, which ultimately led Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister, to call a two-year, $10-million national inquiry into violence against women. The inquiry's 460-page report made 494 recommendations aimed at changing attitudes in governments, police departments, courts, hospitals and churches. It also led to a torrent of lurid news features about battered women.

The current study, which will appear this week -- again, in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science -- says that while the need to stop violence against women is obvious, violence against men is being ignored.

"Our society seems to harbour an implicit acceptance of women's violence as relatively harmless," writes Marilyn Kwong, the Simon Fraser University researcher who led this study.

"Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women's violence . . . jeopardizes the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women."

The study shows roughly that 10.8% of men in the survey pushed, grabbed or threw objects at their spouses in the previous year, while 2.5% committed more severe acts, such as choking, kicking or using a weapon.

The violence is seldom one-sided. Of those surveyed, 52% of women and 62% of men reported that both partners were violent.

When questioned about who initiated the most severe conflicts, 67% of women believed they had started it; only 26% believed it was their male spouse.

Regardless of who started it, women appear to end up the losers in the struggle. A major U.S. study on the topic shows 3% of women suffer injuries in spousal violence, while only 0.4% of males were hurt badly enough to seek medical care.

Publication of the "other side" of the violence study provides a sharp illustration of how social science is manipulated to fit a particular agenda.

"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.

"As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true."

Even the federal government appears to turn a blind eye. In 1993, Statistics Canada began to keep track of assaults by men on women in its Violence Against Women survey. But it does not measure the female-to-male violence. "At the time, it was decided that since violence against women was more prevalent, we would only keep track of that," explains spokesperson Shelley Crego.

Ms.Crego said this decision was based on police reports, noting women complain more frequently of assault by men than vice versa.

In her article, Dr. Kwong implies this creates an incorrect picture. "It is important to keep in mind that, within the criminal justice system, any of the physical acts endorsed by these respondents would constitute assault," she writes.

Nor does it appear that violence is confined to married or common-law relationships.

In a separate study to be published this week, researchers from the University of Regina and Wilfrid Laurier University report that 39% of males surveyed said they suffered violence while on a date, compared with 26% of females.

"This sex difference has been found in other studies of physical and psychological dating violence," report researchers Donald Sharpe and Janelle Taylor.

Your hosts Reg and Sue Price would like to hear your news and views on the topics:

Court 'does not screen' for violence

I guess many people don't know that the divorce industry has a very wide definition of violence to ensure it can completely strip litigants of their assets and their children.

Mothers for example can usually be persuaded to allege violence when facing the prospect of loosing custody of the children. This way even those reluctant to subject their children to having a loving parent subjected to such allegations won't escape the net.

Court 'does not screen' for violence

CAROL NADER

March 6, 2010

THE Federal Magistrates Court hears more than 80 per cent of parenting disputes that end up in court but does not routinely screen for family violence, say the authors of an evaluation of changes to family law.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation says there were 10,987 applications for orders involving children in the Federal Magistrates Court in 2008-09, compared with 2086 in the Family Court.

It said while the Family Court conducted assessment interviews with parents that included screening for family violence, this did not happen in the Federal Magistrates Court, which had insufficient resources and heavy workloads.

But Chief Federal Magistrate John Pascoe says the court's processes were designed to identify family violence and child abuse as early as possible.

The Howard government commissioned the report to assess changes to family law introduced in 2006. The federal government released the 379-page report in January and found that the changes emphasising greater shared parental responsibility were overall working well. But this critical issue went under the radar.

''Issues relating to family violence and child abuse are brought to the attention of the [Federal Magistrates] court by the parties, or the family consultant or independent children's lawyer where these professionals are involved,'' the report says. ''No routine screening takes place by FMC personnel, although parties have the opportunity to bring safety concerns to the attention of registry staff.''

But the report notes that at the end of last year the court was allocated more resources.

Co-author of the evaluation, Dr Matthew Gray, said one reason the Federal Magistrates Court did not routinely screen for family violence was lack of resources.

''Cases with family violence are being missed throughout the family law system, including in the court, and the better and more sophisticated the screening for violence, the more likely it is that the cases will be identified and dealt with appropriately,'' he said.

A spokeswoman for Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe said the Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court had difference processes that took into account the different case mix and volumes.

''The Federal Magistrates Court is a high-volume court with a spectrum of matters, including complex ones,'' she said. ''The Family Court's work is now confined to the most difficult and troublesome matters.''

She said every party to an application in the Federal Magistrates Court had to file a supporting affidavit setting out family violence, substance abuse, mental illness and child abuse. In the year to June 2009, 713 Notice of Abuse forms filed were also filed in the court.

''Federal magistrates are aware that for a variety of reasons allegations may not be raised and routinely explore the presence of risk issues at the first court date,'' she said. Extra resources were being used to explore family violence early.

Family Violence disinformation campaign

A leading men’s health organisation today claimed that the Minister for the Status of Women, Hon Gail Gago MLC, misled Parliament by maintaining that false statistics on the Government’s Don’t Cross the Line anti-violence campaign website

are accurate.

Men's Health Australia also lodged an official complaint with the Ombudsman last Thursday after five months of attempting to draw the Minister's attention to the major statistical errors on the website. The complaint alleges that the Office for Women acted unreasonably by publishing and not correcting this false and misleading information.

page of the website is extremely misleading to the public. It clearly inflates statistics about domestic violence against women while understating statistics about domestic violence against men.”

Men’s Health Australia is supportive of all efforts to reduce interpersonal violence in the community but is concerned that the regular use of incorrect or misleading ‘statistics’ by Governments unfairly stigmatises men and boys as violent and abusive, while simultaneously denying services to male victims of violence.

They are also concerned that the Government’s approach is not in the interests of all children in families where there is abuse or violence, but selectively favours those children in families where violence is perpetrated by the father. The other one-third to half of children have to fend for themselves without support.

On 14th October Minister Gago defended the misleading statistics in Parliament

, claiming that “the data on the Don't Cross the Line website is sound.”

· Overstating the annual number of women victims of domestic violence by almost 400%

· Overstating the number of women killed in domestic violence situations by 86% while ignoring the one in three victims of domestic homicide that are male

· Incorrectly claiming that 95% of domestic violence involves a male perpetrator and a female victim, when in actual fact at least one in three victims of family violence are male

· Ignoring the fact that as many young people have witnessed physical domestic violence by their mother against their father, as have witnessed it by their father against their mother

· Ignoring the research showing that equal numbers of young males and females have experienced domestic violence or have been forced to have sex by their boyfriend/girlfriend.

· Incorrectly claiming that domestic violence is the main cause of death, disability and illness in young women (the main causes are actually anxiety and depression, migraine, type 2 diabetes, asthma and schizophrenia).

“All victims of violence deserve campaigns based upon up-to-date accurate data, and the tax-paying public doesn’t deserve to be misled. Flawed data such as this can only lead to flawed policies and actions, and many children continue to be exposed to violence because of these myths,” said Mr Andresen.

“Inflating statistics on domestic violence against women risks generating an unwarranted climate of fear in the community, especially amongst females. It also has terrible impacts upon the self-esteem of boys and the development of their healthy masculinity.

“Understating the prevalence of domestic violence against men makes it less likely that a man will be believed when he finally summons up the courage to disclose his partner’s abuse of him. It also allows Government to continue to get away with family violence policies and campaigns that ignore male victims.”

Monday, February 01, 2010

Kids seen in school uniforms.

A lot of you would have noticed it was back to school day yesterday. I saw a number of children in school uniform, at the shops in the morning. Other fathers here might have known because they get to see their kids once a fortnight - their kids might have told them. Fewer still might have enough communication with their Xes to be fully up to speed. Others may have married friends with kids.

Imagine the poor kids off to a new year or maybe a new school doing the best they can, knowing that the courts had decided that Dad was no good but not understanding why. With just mum getting annoyed when they ask "why' too many times.

What is Equal Shared Parenting? / What is a Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting all about?

What is Equal Shared Parenting?By a Director of Fathers Are Capable Too: Parenting Association

We get all kinds at a FACT support meeting (Fathers Are Capable Too:Parenting Association). At a recent meeting, aside from our regularcustodial dad, non-custodial mom, and varying forms of unequal sharedparenting arrangements, we had a non-custodial father who had just got hiskids when Children's Aid took them from their abusive mom, a dad who wasstill going to supervised access after 8 years, another dad who was infinancially meltdown, partially due to court ordered payments to covermom's drug addiction, a couple who were attempting to extract his childrenfrom maternal neglect and associated PAS, and a "normal" case where the guywas trying to wrap his mind around the fact that his ex had de factocustody because he left to go to work.

I mention this to show how that despite the incredible variety of cases,they are all fundamentally solved with the same medicine: equal parenting.Equal parenting provides something that no other parenting arrangementprovides: quality assurance. If one parent is failing to provide adequatelyin one part of the overall parenting domain, the other parent can easily,and legally, step in and help. The child can get help in math at one home,help in French at the other, and help in personal relationships at either.And if one parent is stressed out to the extent of harming or neglectingthe child, the other parent can be the child's champion ... and yet notsever that stressed parent completely because that leads to ... the nextparagraph.

Relationship breakdowns are acrimonious affairs. But far more acrimoniousare relationships that are forcibly broken down by someone outside therelationship. It's a great way to generate outright hate. There is oneactivist in Ontario who specialises in "shotgun divorce" cases (where theState says "if you don't divorce, you'll never see your children again"),but I'm talking about a "normal" divorce, where the child's relationshipwith one of their parents is often permanently severed, with neither thechild nor the affected parent desiring it. This is a fundamental denial ofthe Charter right of association; not merely denying the 'form' of therelationship (as the gay-marriage advocates say), but a denial of therelationship itself. In no other case, does the State jump in with policepowers and forcibly prevent people from associating with each other whenthey wish to associate.

So when parents sense that they may lose their child forever (because thechild, being so young, will not have the capability of recovering therelationship on its own), they react to this impending doom. Sometimes theyflip out and do outrageous, and illegal things ... like the mother whokidnapped her triplets, or the murder-suicides (like the mother who shother ex-husband in Oakville last year). But these are caused by the lack ofpersonal security: if this precious relationship was secure then the parentcould consent to temporary measures to help both parents over the impasse.Currently, there is no such thing as a temporary measure (who believes the"interim" part of "interim custody").

So, here is the key element of Equal Parenting: have the system work toreduce tension, rather than the current "winner take all" system thatencourages enflaming the situation and family and child dysfunction.

Children inherently have no real rights because they cannot enforce any"rights" on their own. A child requires a champion to work the system. Thegovernment cannot provide this champion because the government does notknow the child, and neither does the bureaucrat assigned the case. Only theparents do, and only if they live with the child a substantial amount ofthe time. A child has no control over the money, even if it is in thechild's name. Thus, a child has only two assets: Mom and Dad. Everythingelse is an illusion.

Divorce has a huge, but unmeasured effect on the economy. All Westerndeveloped countries have a similar divorce process, so we don't have anyeffective data the measure divorce's impact. However, note that the surestway to gain custody of your child is to quit work. The usual way of losingcustody is to go to work. By stepping out the door, you've stepped out ofthe child's life, possibly forever. This is not a productive way to run aneconomy. Using the court process to recover a relationship with your childis often so exhausting, that it is a frequent occurrence that men losetheir jobs (due to poor performance), and then, unable to pay support, theystart a downward spiral that leaves them as largely unproductive members ofsociety.

Taxpayers support divorce, and taxpayers support the added cost to societyof single parent homes. Child support cannot possibly be high enough to paythese added costs without destroying the life of the payor (and hiscapacity to earn). Using the guideline amounts for child and spousalsupport, a payor can see 70% of this income deducted at source, more ifthere are add-ons or if the income is imputed at higher level. The Laffercurve (tax-policy concept) indicates that this produces less revenueoverall. Downloading welfare onto an individual is poor policy. An averageearner payor is prevented from forming stable new relationships ("movingon") owing to the huge financial stress they are under. An averagerecipient is demotivated from seeking employment since for each dollarearned, taxpayer support is reduced by 70 to 80 cents. The essence is: twohouseholds cost more than one, so, for average earning households, thetaxpayer must pay to make up some of the difference.

Equal parenting tends to reduce the overall divorce rate; if you know youwill always have to deal with the other parent, there is a stronger desireto have the marriage work. This is born out in several American states thathave a presumption of (legal) joint custody.

Equal shared parenting is now the law in Iowa (since last July).

This issue cannot be fought directly in the courts, because the primarylosers in the change from the adversarial system to a system based onequality are the lawyers and judges themselves. Divorces represent a hugeamount of income to the legal profession, money that could have been usedto raise the children. FACT attempted to bring forward a constitutionalchallenge, but the court would not hear it. Other groups can have theirchallenges heard with far fewer members. The custody/access portion is notreally possible to bring forward in an individual case owing to the natureof the cases; the initial court process is slow, the appeals process isslow, the children are grown up and gone before the Supreme Court wouldever hear it.

The groups that will most adversely affected by ESP are lawyers, judges,assessors, and other elements of the legal system. Most ESP activists canrelate to this: divorce lawyers will not be able to charge such massivefees when the consequences for failure, and the probability of failure aresubstantially reduced (failure in this case means losing a meaningful rolein your child's life). Although this is the obvious change, the system willstill play a role in dealing with mediating lower level things, and, moreimportantly, teaching the parents to be reasonably co-operative (sinceotherwise they will be racking up the mediator charges). However, there isa secondary effect that impacts the legal system:

Children of divorce currently learn just how easy it is to ignore thecourt. They live with the custodial parent, who is court ordered tofacilitate access. Yet that parental role model flouts the court order. Andthe child certainly sees it. The child certainly senses the injustice ofone parent lording it over the other, preventing access on a whim. Afterall, the child is directly affected by access denial; directly abused byit. The child learns that courts, police, and other elements of the justicesystem are powerless against the custodial parent. With that lesson welllearned, the child grows up, becomes independent, ignores authority andflouts the law. Is it any wonder that children from single parent homes arefar more likely to be involved in crime?

One should note that neighbourhood crime statistics correlate more withsingle parent homes than income levels. Poverty no longer generates as muchcrime as single parenthood does. Criminal lawyers will lose business ifcrime is reduced.

Equal shared parenting lays the foundation for effective accessenforcement, since it changes the norms of society. If everyone expectsequality between the parents, then the abnormal denial of one parent willbe readily seen as child abuse, and actions will be taken by neighbours,the schools, and other members of the community to correct so obvious an abuse.

Some people suggest that equality between parents is somehow anti-woman. Weshould note that back in the 1960s, when the American feminist organisationNOW was founded, one of their principles stated that equality in employmentcould never be achieved as long as their wasn't equality in child-carewithin marriage (they dropped this line more than 20 years ago). Dr. Kruk'sstudy of the "Disengaged" non-custodial fathers suggests that parentingroles have evolved since the 1960s, with fathers taking on a more hands-onrole. With mothers in the workforce and fathers changing diapers, bothparents are in both traditional roles, and yet the sole-custody presumptionin divorce reflects that old model of sex-specific roles. Kruk shows thatbeing shunted out into the NCP role immensely hurts fathers who wereactively involved in parenting during the marriage. They go into "chronicgrief" (the experience, I'm sure many have had it, of feeling that yourchild has just died, every time you hand your child over to your ex). Thisgrief can destroy one's soul, and hence one's productivity.

ESP recognises that parental roles have changed. Oddly, that makes us morefeminist than the women's groups (who are not seeking equality, but onlythings that are good for women ... forget children and don't even mentionmen). With shared parenting within the marriage, we must have equalparenting after a marriage; otherwise one parent will drop into "chronicgrief" and become a burden to society.

Lastly, this is a human rights issue. There is only one group that isspecifically targeted by special laws to have their assets seized, theirbank accounts frozen, and be placed in jail without ever committing acrime.* Support payors with chronic grief. ESP works to remove the grief.

* Actually, they are victims of a crime, child abduction. However, thecourt legalises the crime when it "awards" sole-custody.

---------------------------------------------------------

Here is a summary that was presented to the federal Department of Justice:

Every civil law has a default position. Don't pay if not through the courtsystem, innocent until proven guilty, if the car is full of drugs it isseized, and so on. The Divorce Act does not have one, and it needs onesince the family courts in Canada have implemented one that is not "in thebest interests of the children".

Equal shared parenting assumes that parents should share in theresponsibilities and parenting time for their children on an equal basis.This is, of course, the assumption inherent when a married couple have achild, irrespective of any deemed conflict between the. Even in Quebec'ssame-sex civil union law this basic tenant is recognised. It deems anequivalent set of rights and responsibilities before a separation as after.Of course, separation changes the nature of the contract of divorce. Aswith the pre-divorce scenario, couple may agree to share theseresponsibilities differently - who goes to Saturday soccer, who chauffeurschildren to a birthday party, who cooks on which night, who is responsiblefor heating which house, which days parents work and so on. At separationwith two different households the nature of the splitting of tasks therewill be change, but the ability to be flexible must still be available toaccommodate both parents and children. More importantly, it is the first6-18 months after the separation that has the largest impact on thepsychological well-being of the children of divorce - this is the time toimplement a balanced and low conflict environment.

A presumption of equal shared parenting at divorce makes a level playingfield between the parents with respect to parenting time and responsibilityat the moment of separation. From that point on, parents and children havethe ability to craft an agreement with which all agree. The courts andlawyers should not, and need not, be involved. Once there is an agreementbetween the parents covering the issues of parenting time, location andfinancial issues (often called a "parenting plan") the parents can moveaway from the default 50-50 sharing. If there is no agreement, the 50-50sharing will be left in place. Parents gain from reasonable solutions. Ifpettiness and aggression is instituted by one parent then the best suchfighting will obtain is a 50-50 split, and it may well limit time with thefighting parent if it is damaging to the child. By eliminating the powerimbalance, the root cause of parental fights and the concept of "winning"evaporate.

Of course, the presumption must be rebuttable. If father is in jail, ifmother is in an institution, if either has a history of killing childrenwhen put under stress, or of neglecting or abusing their children, it istime to look at things differently. Real and proven reasons should changethe situation. Speculation should not.

The accommodation should be for the parents and the children. It is not forthe lawyers, judges, psychologists, counsellors, and other bureaucrats whomay be trying to move in, take money and/or control the lives of parentsand children where there is no reason to do so.

Courts should not have the ability to impose special arrangements undernormal circumstances. Only in circumstances where it is proven not to be inthe best interests of the child (not the best interests of either parent)may the courts intervene to move away from the equal parenting arrangement.The courts would intervene at the time of separation if there existed aproven reason in which they has already intervened. If there was not pointin intervention before the separation that is no point in intervening atthe separation.

Issues may develop afterwards. In cases of parental psychologicaldysfunction, the abusive alienation of children (inducing ParentalAlienation Syndrome in the children), other child abuse or neglect, aparent refusing to comply with agreement, and the kidnapping children (i.e.refusal of the other parent's parenting time) are the types of problemswhere the courts should be involved. However, this will hopefully besuccessful.

A lowering of the conflict of divorce, a clean definition of a continuanceof the pre-separation rights and benefits, and a system where attempts tofuel a battle are suppressed will benefit the children of divorce. Thesavings in legal costs alone will provide increased standards of living tomany of these children.

Society will gain from both healthier children and a substantial ability toreduce the expensive and unnecessary institutions that currently fueldivorce conflicts. A policy should be seeking to reduce the number offamily courts and family judges, the bureaucracy in place to fosterconflict, and the massive attempts to patch up the collateral damage causedalready.

A rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting creates the environmentto produce the stated goals of the federal and provincial legislationgoverning divorce and separation.

Protection from Family Court Abuses

re: recent calls for protection of disabled men from Family Court abuses.

Protection from Family Court Abuses should be the theme of all our protests. Especially protection for our children.

Whilst the focus is on men, disabled or not, we'll always get the media pitting this whole thing as a Man Vs Woman fight (and you knows who always will wins then ...Ladies before Gentlemen).

Its all about the media and who's press releases they are publishing.They usually only get professional press releases from the industry - the "experts", so there's a constant stream.

We can change that.

Why do we expect politicians to change things when the media is running the Industry's press releases?

The media is the battle ground. When children are shown as the victims not women the real witch hunt will commence (for the real perpetrators).

I think they (the anti shared care brigade) are desperate to keep the debate on Family Violence against women; their livelihoods depend on it. That’s what big industries do when their cash flow is threatened. The divorce industry is one of the biggest around. Plus we've got the added problem of all the NGOs (govt funded "Non Government organisations) eg: Women’s refuges, women’s rights bodies, etc. They all seem to have a professional in-house PR capacity

Once we are presented (by the media) as protectors of children and not Men (against women), we've won :)

...protecting children who currently represent;- 63% of youth suicides- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions- 71% of High School dropouts- 75% of children in drug abuse centres- 85% of children with behavioral problems- 87% of juvenile offenders.- 90% of homeless and runaway children

The greatest suffering caused by this diabolical "Family Law" industry comes from seeing children suffer and being helpless to save them - children you love, your own or just any children.

Neither gender can lay claim to be suffering this more than the other, When children are hurt we as their parents are devastated

Protecting children can solve all of the problems that are particularly acute for fathers. AVOs, false alligations, CSA, discrimination against men and boys, misandry, male suicide. All of them.

After years of working on this I firmly believe that RCOs can prevent the trauma before it can even start.

Some have questioned why RCOs would have to be handled by the Magistrates Court, when the FC already has the power to, and I believe the obligation, to insure fathers are not removed unilaterally (ie: only a Court should be able to make this decision upon hearing an application with evidence). My answer to this is, 'fine'. If the FC will protect children from the known harm caused when they are denied access to a loving parent, I'd be happy for them to administer the RCOs. However I do I think its best kept separate from the FC as AVOs are. AVOs (intervention orders) are mainly to protect women, so why shouldn't RCO's that protect children be kept separate from FC litigations (with all its acrimony, accusations, innuendo and focus on money).

If any body here has any doubts regarding the extent of harm done to children caused by the divorce industry, get an eye full of this

- 63% of youth suicides- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions- 71% of High School dropouts- 75% of children in drug abuse centres- 85% of children with behavioral problems- 87% of juvenile offenders.- 90% of homeless and runaway children

It is quite frightening when you realise that everybody in the Industry - the Vested Interests - who claim expertise on children, are well aware of this great body of research - proving that what they do is at best against the "best interests of children". In view of the harm done it should, in my view, be seen as what it is - child abuse for money.

The Domestic Violence weapon is a beauty. However I believe this can be neutralised once we insure AVOs can't be used to deny children access to a parent; ie: when 3rd party changeovers can be arranged (eg: at school, with relatives etc.).

Besides when its no longer an effective tool to deny children contact with a father, it won't be used.

Here's a (updated) summary of the RCO submission;

RCOs - immediately enforceable Recovery of Contact Order (RCO)

RCO's would provide for up to 50% shared parenting. Fathers or mothers could opt for less than 50% if they wanted.

Like AVOs be immediately obtainable and effective immediately and if opposed subject to a court hearing within days.

Safeguards and protectionAfter much discussion regarding concerns if one parent really is a danger to their own children (a situation I find hard to imagine but am assured is sometimes a problem). I believe RCO's can include the following safeguards:

If the mother, for example, wanted to resist the RCO on the grounds of genuine concerns for the child's safety with the other parent, two options would be available to her;

1. She lays charges of child abuse (including serious neglect) with the Police, which would immediately prevent the automatic enforcement of the RCO, until it can be adjudicated in court.

2. She breaches the order, in which case she's got some explaining to do when it comes to court‚ (all RCO's would be subject to a prompt hearing in the Local Magistrates or District Court just like AVOs).

Likewise this applies for fathers too.

Child welfare / protection agenciesI believe these are very dangerous because they almost always approach the problem by taking sides. Its just the way they operate - unsophisticated as it is. Mainly due to the anti-male culture of the industry, the anti equality "feminist" teachings ie: Gender Studies is a core component of "child protection" courses that teach old school feminist principles of hate, power, all men are rapists/bastards etc.. On top of this most social workers and child protection workers are relatively immature and lack of life experience. They also subject children to traumatising, invasive and suggestive interrogation to assist one parent in custody litigation. I believe the above two safeguards provide children with appropriate protection from 'monster parents' and the practitioners who profit from their distress.

Presumption of Equal Parenting TimeI believe the RCO is the only way a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time can be protected - otherwise one parent can exclude the other, thereby forcing them to mount a legal challenge to attempt to regain contact with their children.

PRRCO's are designed to protect children from the dangers associated with losing the protection of having both parents. eg: abuse and neglect, emotional and developmental problems - and sexual abuse (one parent can't look after their children 24/7).

Fatherless children represent;- 63% of youth suicides- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions- 71% of High School dropouts- 75% of children in drug abuse centres- 85% of children with behavioral problems- 87% of juvenile offenders.- 90% of homeless and runaway children85% of child abuse victims are from single parents homes.

I believe its only a matter of time before the media cottons on to the lies they've been fed and come out in support of children.

RCO's are not about men's rights - they are about children's safety and best interests.However I believe RCOs are the single most effective way of restoring men's rights in society.

Family Violence impactsBe it real or contrived, Family Violence (against the woman) must not be allowed to have any bearing on equal parenting arrangements when change over can be made at school or through third parties.

BenefitsContrary to popular belief, the Family Court doesn't exclude fathers from children's lives. Rather it prevents fathers from being reunited with their children after they've been excluded by the other parent - unilaterally. It's an important difference. Once the onus of proof is born by the excluder, courts can I believe, be expected to be as obstructive as they are now - of efforts to exclude one parent (eg: the father).

The Family Court is very reluctant to make decisions that change the arrangements for children without lots of "expert" involvement - eg: physiological and psychiatric reports, Family Welfare reports etc. When a child's association with both parents is protected by law - with RCOs, the situation is reversed. The excluder must substantiate their case - not the excluded. Most Judges will be disinclined to upset living arrangements for children on the basis of unproven allegations - just as they are to disrupt the sole parent regime thats has been established by excluding the father now.

Both parent's contact with their children will be protected as much as each other. Plus their children will not have been exposed to the conflict of custody litigation for long enough to become traumatised. Mothers (and/or fathers) are therefore far less likely to make serious false alligations of abuse of their own children. Its a known fact that most sexual abuse allegations get made as a last resort, after protracted litigation. They seldom get made in the initial instance. RCOs would avoid the problem in most cases.

For cases where mothers do make nasty false allegations "right out of the box", they will need to be made with the police and therefore more credible

Family Relationship centres (Australia's social worker mediated negotiation process) would be able to operate effectively because one parent would not be able to exclude the other, unilaterally....off their own bat.

RCO's would avoid unfair CSA (child support) assessments because both parents can care for their children - equally.

If a father is happy to have minimal contact with his children, he should be willing to pay a fair and reasonable child support. Otherwise it should be shared equally or according to the parent's means by agreement.

RCO's would not be immediately enforceable if opposed on the grounds that children are under 1 years or being breast fed, but subject to adjudication by a court.